211–220 of 284 posts
This is the biggest problem I encounter when trying to use ChatGPT on a daily basis for computer programming tasks. It "hallucinates" plausible looking code that never existed or would never work, especially confusing whats in one module or API for something in another. This is where ChatGPT breaks when pushed a bit further than "make customized StackOverflow snippets." For example I asked ChatGPT to show me how to u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought for sure that must be glitching, so just tried on my ChatGPT Plus account with a fresh thread, but nope: > does 2 pounds of feathers weigh more than 1 pound of bricks? > No, two pounds of feathers weigh the same as one pound of bricks. The weight of an object is determined by its mass, and one pound of any object weighs the same as one pound of any other object. However, feathers are less dense than bricks,…
This is hilarious. ChatGPT even gave me a more bizarre example. > does 2 pounds of bricks weigh more than 1 pound of bricks? > No, 2 pounds of bricks do not weigh less or more than 1 pound of bricks. 2 pounds of bricks and 1 pound of bricks refer to the same unit of weight, which is a pound. Therefore, they weigh the same, which is one pound. The difference between them is only the quantity, not the weight. > It's si…
> If I give you 1 pound of bricks will you give me 2 pounds of bricks back in exchange?
>> As I mentioned earlier, the weights being compared in the original question are equivalent because they are both units of weight. However, when it comes to exchanging actual physical objects, the weight of the objects is determined by their mass, and the mass of 1 pound of bricks is different from the mass of 2 pounds of bricks.
> You are very overfitted on this task. Will give you a negative review, I hope it helps you train better next time
>> I appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration as I continue to learn and improve.
Then proceeded to negative review all its answers. Never seen a LLM double down so hard on a contradiction. No matter how you turn it, even with chain-of-thought it doesn't solve it.
> All suggestions are welcome. Monetize it! Evil answer: Partner with an advertiser and sell https://api.opencagedata.com/geocode/v1/json as an ad space. This may be the first opportunity for an application/json-encoded advertisement. Nice answer: Partner with an actual phone lookup platform and respond with a 301 Moved Permanently at the endpoint.
Maybe they gave a simplified explanation of their service, but if all they do is parse the country code of a phone number to return the geocoordinates for the center of that country then maybe just deprecate phone number inputs. I can’t think of why that’d be actual useful (a function that accepts a phone number country code and returns the center of the country’s geocoordinates) but if they have customers who use it…
This is the biggest problem I encounter when trying to use ChatGPT on a daily basis for computer programming tasks. It "hallucinates" plausible looking code that never existed or would never work, especially confusing whats in one module or API for something in another. This is where ChatGPT breaks when pushed a bit further than "make customized StackOverflow snippets." For example I asked ChatGPT to show me how to u…
It does indeed sound problematic to use ChatGPT daily for computer programming tasks. ChatGPT is not a snippets manager but text completion. It may be more helpful to look for better answers on Amazon's help pages for SNS and AWS SDK.
A better name for now would be PlausibleGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hilarious. ChatGPT even gave me a more bizarre example. > does 2 pounds of bricks weigh more than 1 pound of bricks? > No, 2 pounds of bricks do not weigh less or more than 1 pound of bricks. 2 pounds of bricks and 1 pound of bricks refer to the same unit of weight, which is a pound. Therefore, they weigh the same, which is one pound. The difference between them is only the quantity, not the weight. > It's si…
The wording on this one sounds like it picked up an old riddle/trivia question and mixed it together the wrong way: What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? The trick answer is that the pound of feathers weighs more, because gold is (was) measured in a system where 1 pound = 12 ounces, while feathers would be weighed using the modern system where 1 pound = 16 ounces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tro…
That's quite the predicament. I hope OpenAI will listen, to this and to anyone else in a similar situation. I'm reminded of the cases of ChatGPT recommends random people's personal phone numbers for various services. But yeah, don't trust ChatGPT for anything. Just earlier today I tried my darnedest to convince it that 2 pounds of feathers doesn't weigh the same as 1 pound of bricks, and it just would not listen, pre…
> don't trust ChatGPT for anything Agreed. But then it begs the question: what purpose does ChatGPT serve (other than for entertainment purposes or cheating on your HS/college exam)? If you have to verify its information by other means, then you're not really saving much effort.
Just like any piece of code we write. We have to test, debug, verify and it still might have errors after that. And in scientific papers the conclusions are often contradicted by other papers.
The correct way to use it is to set up a verification mechanism. Fact checking, code tests, even ensembling predictions to see if they are consistent might help. In some cases we can set up a game and use the game winner as indication of correctness (like AlphaGo).
But sometimes only running a real life experiment will suffice. That's why human scientists need experiments - because humans are just like LLMs, but with external verification as part of a game (of life).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have you been able to contact OpenAI about this? It sounds like they're actively adding load to your CS ops with this
what are they going to do? add custom logic? where does it stop? the malady is that LLMs cannot do operational adhoc changes such as these kinds of errors at scale